House Energy & Commerce Health
Does that sound familiar? More important, does it sound believable? Expectations of existing Medicare patients seeing Medicare improve is somewhere between "nil," "nada," "zilch," and "nothing." American Action Forum president Doug Holtz-Eakin added, "Those most hurt by the cuts are low-income seniors in rural areas without other options for supplemental Medicare coverage. Additional scheduled cuts in the future will broaden the damage to Medicare Advantage. Twenty-eight percent of all Medicare beneficiaries were enrolled in Medicare Advantage in 2013."
Clearly, when the dust settles, Barack Obama is going to make sure there is only one healthcare system in the United States—and it will be a single-payer system. Will Congress enact this new single payer system? No. It will simply evolve through the unelected fourth branch of government that actually writes the 20 to 30 thousand pages of regulations after Congressmen and Senators vote "aye" or "nay" on the 200 to 2,000 page shells of laws which someone other than them (the special interest groups that financially benefit from them) actually crafted. Wake up, America. The clock is ticking. We are scant minutes away from losing liberty forever. When we find ourselves shackled to the factory wall in a Stalin-type communist gulag called America, don't shake your head and ask how it happened. Just look around—now!
Remember Tupperware parties? Or
That's why the Obama Administration has engaged in food stamp trickery. It's critical to the agenda of the left. In a press release issued on Sept. 4, 2012, Obama Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the former Democratic governor of Iowa, said there are "...too many middle-class families who have fallen on hard times are still struggling. Our goal is to get these families the temporary assistance they need so they are able to get through these tough times and back on their feet as soon as possible."
And, that's why the US House of Representatives, in a 217-200 vote approved a bill containing $40 billion food stamp spending cuts on Sept. 19, 2012. As the measure was coming up for a vote, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor [R-VA], who was the driving force behind the bill, told the members that it was "...wrong for working middle-class families to pay for the abuses in the program..." whose costs have skyrocketed in recent years as the left works hard to shackle even more Americans to the government feeding trough in an attempt to control their vote. Prior to the House vote, the Senate already passed a similar measure in Mayonly their proposed token cuts were around $4.5 billion (so they could claim, to the middle class voters back home) that they voted to cut welfare spending, and at the same time, campaign that they fought to rein in heartless Republican by minimizing the loss of benefit to those still signing up at Food Stamp parties all around the country.
Since 2009 the USDA has devoted considerable time dreaming up entire public relations promotional campaigns to entice potentially eligible Americans to participate in SNAP. Obama feels that the more people there are in the program, the less stigma there will be attached to it. You can't look down on your neighbor's using food stamps if you're using them, too.
Posted on the USDA website in September, 2012 was a phamplet (available at local SNAP offices) that encouraged SNAP officials to throw "food stamp parties" as a way to encourage seniors on fixed incomes to enroll in the program. The phamplet read: "Throw a Great Party. Host social events where people mix and mingle. Make it fun by having activities, games, food and entertainment, and provide information about SNAP. Putting SNAP information in a game format like BINGO, crossword puzzles, or even in a 'true/false' quiz is fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way."
The Daily Caller reported in June, 2012 that the USDA began running radio ads in March and continued them through June at a cost to taxpayers of between $2.5 to $3 million. CNN reported that the first time the USDA used that ploy (attempting to attract seniors into applying for food stamps) was in 2004 under President George W. Bushwho oversaw (CNN said, quoting the Obama Administration) a 63% increase in food stamp participation.
However, on Jan. 1, 2005, the highest food stamp usage in any State was 20.5%. While the Bush-43 increase may have been 63% over what the previous levels were, CNN stats implied that where 47% of the eligible population are currently on food stamps today, 63% of the eligible SNAP recipients were on food stamps under Bush-43which appears to be something of a deliberate gross exaggeration.
If the amount of people on food stamps in 2004 before Bush-43 initiated what CNN implied was his "invitation to welfare" program (if he actually did) was, say, 10% of those potentially eligible, then a 63% increase would raise the number of participants to 16.3% If only 5% of the population was on food stamps, a 63% increase would raise the total percentage of food stamp recipients to about 13.2% CNN's social progressive vegans apparently can't tell the difference between apples and tomatoes, believing since both are red and both are technically fruit, they must both be apples.
After the House vote to cut $40 billion in food stamp spending, House and Senate Democrats got on the stump, arguing that the GOP bill was going to eliminate benefits to about 4 million of the neediest families in America. Senator Debbie Stabenow [D-MI], chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee said "...we have never before seen this kind of partisanship injected into a farm bill," adding the House bill was "...a monumental waste of time that will never become law." The White House, which wants even more people on welfare (and its job creation efforts support that theory) threatened, on Wednesday, Sept. 18, to veto to House measure to "...prevent damage to one of our nation's strongest defenses against hunger and poverty."
One-in-seven Americans now receive food stamp assistance. Many of those on welfare hold solid middle income jobs, The recipients are, in many cases, people who own their own homes, have least two family vehiclesand vacation somewhere other than in their back yard each year. Because recipients today receive debit cards that look like credit cards, they don't carry the "food stamp" stigma that many many needy Americans shun the program in the past out of the shame associated with paying for your groceries with USDA food coupons. Today, food stamps have become "free money." And the prevailing mood is that no one in their right mind turns down free money. Only, it's not free. It's paid for by your neighbors who ae struggling to make ends meet just like you.
Court rules on behalf of an
Sulindac®, the generic form of Clinoril, was approved by the FDA in 1991. Clinoril was approved in 1979. The Bartletts contended in their lawsuit that, following its approval by the Food and Drug Administration, Mutual Pharmaceuticals had an obligation to conduct post-approval safety surveillance for reports of adverse reactions to the drug that suggest the quality control of Sulindac® might not be what it should be, or that nasty side-affects simply pop up like a blister or lesion after extended use. In addition, the Bartletts alleged that Mutual Pharmaceuticals had a moral responsibility to advise the end user of any potential serious side-affects including anything negative buried in the medical literature. And, was there anything in that literature that would have warned the physician thinking about prescribing it of the potential dangers Karen Bartlett actually experienced?
The Bartlett lawsuit alleged seven counts. Onefailure to warn the market place of potential health hazards. TwoAsserting product liability in a product defective in design. Threefraud by omitting or concealing material facts about potential risks from using Sulindac®. Fourbreach of an implied warranty. Fivebreach of express warranty that Sulindac® was safe. Sixnegligence in failing to use reasonable care in marketing Sulindac®. And, sevengross negligence based on all of the above.
On July 24, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled on behalf of Mutual Pharmaceutical in a 5 to 4 vote, striking down a lower court's decision to award Karen Bartlett $21 million to compensate her for damages causes by adverse reactions from the generic drug. The SCOTUS ruling was a reiteration of a 2011 decision in which the high court held that "...[i]n prior decisions, the Court has recognized that it may sometimes be impossible for a drug company to comply with FDA design and labeling requirements on the one hand and State laws on the othertypically because State law authorizes liability for drugs that meet FDA standards. The conflict is especially acute for for generic versions of name-brand drugs." In other words, name brand drugs can still be singled out for mislabeling, fraud and adverse drug side effects, but generic versions of the same drug, made from the same formulation and the same warnings, can not be. Dissenting Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayer argued that "...the Court has left a seriously injured customer without any remedy despite Congress' explicit efforts to preserve State common-law liability."
But Mutual Pharmaceutical,
whose donations to Obama and to several Democratic SuperPacs
in the 2012 election totaled $2,332,500.00 was happy about the
high court's decision. Take off their total donations to the social
progressives, and Mutual was still ahead by $18,667,500.00.